24.03.2013 Views

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The Law Regarding Child Welfare and Domestic Violence<br />

6<br />

Representing Domestic Violence Victims in<br />

Child Welfare Cases<br />

by Jill M. Zuccardy<br />

For domestic violence victims who face child neglect proceedings, the<br />

<strong>Court</strong> of Appeals decision in Nicholson v Scoppetta1 changed radically the legal<br />

landscape in which they defend themselves against charges that they have failed<br />

to protect their children from harm. Prior to 2004, the decisions of the different<br />

appellate divisions regarding issues of domestic violence in child welfare cases<br />

could not be harmonized. The confusion traced its origins to the 1998 decision<br />

in In re Lonell J., 2 in which the Appellate Division, First Department, held that<br />

expert testimony is not necessary to establish that exposure to domestic violence<br />

causes harm to children rising to the level of impairment under the statute<br />

governing child neglect. Some, but not all, lower courts seemed to interpret In<br />

re Lonell J. as holding that a child who witnesses domestic violence per se<br />

suffers harm sufficient to support a finding of neglect against the victim-parent<br />

as well the perpetrator-parent. 3<br />

In October, 2004, the New York <strong>Court</strong> of Appeals issued its landmark<br />

decision in Nicholson v Scoppetta. 4 The <strong>Court</strong> held that a parent may not be<br />

charged with neglect solely on the grounds that the parent is a victim of domestic<br />

violence and the child has been exposed to the violence. The <strong>Court</strong> also held<br />

that a presumption of emotional harm is impermissible by law because not every<br />

child exposed to domestic violence suffers harm or even a risk of harm as<br />

defined by the neglect statute. The <strong>Court</strong> made clear that In re Lonell J. stood<br />

only for the proposition that expert testimony is not required to prove that a<br />

child exposed to domestic violence has suffered harm under the statute but that<br />

it did not dispose with the requirement that emotional harm be proven.<br />

The <strong>Court</strong> further emphasized that even if emotional harm to a child from<br />

exposure to domestic violence is proven by particularized evidence, a battered

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!